Raj Mathur ( राज =?utf-8?b?IOCkruCkvuCkpeClgeCksA==?=) raju at
Sun Sep 5 05:14:31 UTC 2010

On Saturday 04 Sep 2010, David Woolley wrote:
> Helge Reikeras wrote:
> > I'm considering using ARToolKit for a project I'm working on. See
> > The disclaimer reads
> > 
> > 
> > ARToolKit is made available freely for non-commercial use under the
> > GNU General Public License. Commercial licenses to a professional
> This appears to void the GPL, as it appears to be an additional
> restriction.  There appear to be no licences other than the
> commercial ones.
> It is possible they didn't mean commercial, but something more
> limited, corresponding to things not permitted by the GPL.
> However, it is likely that they failed to understand the GPL.

It is also possible that they are falling into the common error of 
confusing "proprietary" with "commercial", and hence "open"/"free" for 
"non-commercial".  It takes a fair amount of education before people 
understand that FOSS licences are actually "commercial"; until they 
understand that, they tend to use "commercial" as the antonym of 
"free/open".  The confusion is probably due to the dual nature of the 
word "free".

Wouldn't it be possible to contact UW and get a clarification from them?  
Give a bit of latitude, their intent appears to be clear: dual-license 
the toolkit, a la Qt.


-- Raj
Raj Mathur                raju at
       GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5  0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill:   ||   It is the mind that moves

More information about the License-discuss mailing list